2018 initially 544 Application for a compensation order

Attorney C

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

The Defendant is a person who has been engaged in the business of managing funds, such as payment for transactions, while managing the passbook and seal, etc. of the victimized company as a result of accounting at the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd. in Yangsan-si. In the event that the victimized company ceased to use the above national bank account among the transaction partners, and no longer uses the above national bank account, the Defendant was able to keep the above national bank account separately in the office after the representative director went into the office, to request the other transaction companies to return the above national bank account by telephone to the national bank account, and to withdraw it for private use, and to make it impossible for the above representative director to obtain information by manipulating the accounting account.

On January 23, 2013, the Defendant released KRW 276,00 from the national bank account in the name of the victimized company in the name of the Defendant, in cash, and voluntarily used for living expenses, etc., from around that time to March 5, 2018, the Defendant released KRW 611,72,00 in total of the funds of the victimized company for 72 times in the same manner as in the annexed crime list, and voluntarily used them for living expenses, etc., in the same manner.

As a result, the Defendant embezzled KRW 611, 722, and 00 of the funds of the victimized company that was in custody on duty.

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356 and Article 355 of the Criminal Act

Article 1 (General Provisions)

1. Dismissal of an application for compensation order;

Articles 32(1)3 and (2) and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Defendants)

The defendant's liability for damages, such as deposit of part of the damage amount to the damaged company after the closing of this argument.

It is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation because the scope of the order is not clear.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Three years to thirty years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria; and

[Determination of Type] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust; Type 3 (at least 500 million won but less than 5 billion won)

[Special Convicts] Where the law on the number of crimes is extremely poor

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 3 years to 6 years

3. Determination of sentence;

On the other hand, the crime of this case takes into account that the defendant embezzleds money exceeding KRW 600 million in total within 5 years of working as an accounting employee of the victimized company, and that the nature and circumstances of the crime are very poor, such as manipulating accounting books in the process of large amount of damage and embezzlement, damage recovery is insufficient, and that the victimized company and its executives and employees want to be punished against the defendant, etc.

On the other hand, the Defendant is a primary offender, and the Defendant has committed a crime against the depth of the mistake while committing the crime, and deposited KRW 18 million for the intention of the damaged society, etc. In addition, the Defendant’s economic situation, family relation, age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after committing the crime, etc., and the scope of recommended punishment according to sentencing guidelines, shall be determined as per the order, comprehensively taking into account all the conditions that were faced in the argument of the instant case, including the circumstances after committing the crime, and the scope of recommended punishment according to sentencing guidelines.

Judge Lee Jong-chul

Judges Lee Dong-young